[erlang-questions] What is wrong with this list?

Dustin Sallings dustin@REDACTED
Wed Sep 5 05:45:20 CEST 2007

On Sep 4, 2007, at 19:10, David Hopwood wrote:

> In cases where this is a bug, it probably *is* often useful to know  
> what
> the two values (Pid and other_function() in the second match) are. For
> process ids, it is less useful than for other values, but you can  
> still
> use them to identify both processes in a debugger. At least this
> information can't hurt.
>>     You have the same issue in a case, receive, function definition,
>> etc... for which you have no matching case.  You don't want to list
>> every possible pattern.
> That's not a reason not to display the pattern in cases where there  
> can
> only be one.

	I suppose I don't disagree with you enough to continue arguing.

	Things can certainly be better, but I don't see how you'd get both  
sides of the match without breaking compatibility.

Dustin Sallings

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list